My city lying about recycling?

This is a discussion on My city lying about recycling? within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Because the Prius is so anemically powered, you have to flog it pretty hard to get anything resembling performance out of it.
In point of ...

...There was not a growing need to save sand. There was no shortage of glass. The government created a program that would create jobs. Their interest was NOT to produce glass more efficiently. The glass industry produces glass from sand ready to manufacture in it's current form. Recycled bottles are not. Sand comes from one source loaded quickly onto large trucks. Recycled bottles get collected from thousands of different homes using many large trucks very slowly. When recycling many more steps are added to the process making it less effiecient. They need to sort plastic and paper from the glass. Colors need to be sorted etc... They need to take the recycled glass back to it's basic form where as sand is ready to go into manufacture in it's natural form and requires much less energy to complete the task.

This (recycling) should be about producing a needed product as effienctly as possible with as little impact on resources and the planet. I think we would all agree on that. However, this is NOT the goal of government. They want to create industries that spur jobs and have absolutely nothing to do with effieciency. They have succeeded but it's not what you think it is and it's NOT 'green' at all. Those that believe their efforts of recycling are actually doing something good have been duped.

I guess that you have a source that you can refer us to to confirm these facts?

Besides that, if they're not hauling it for recycling they'd still be hauling it to the garbage dump.

"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

A lot of people are looking at the recycling issue in a very one sided fashion. Even if recycling a glass bottle uses the exact same amount of resources as you would use to make one from scratch (which I find doubtful) there is an issue other than what goes into producing the final product. That issue would be space. If we do not recycle anything at all, where does it go. The same place un-recyclable products go. Eventually, that space runs out, then what? Even if you look at it on the basis of it being the "lesser of two evils" you cannot dispute that there are some advantages to the process.

A lot of people are looking at the recycling issue in a very one sided fashion. Even if recycling a glass bottle uses the exact same amount of resources as you would use to make one from scratch (which I find doubtful) there is an issue other than what goes into producing the final product. That issue would be space. If we do not recycle anything at all, where does it go. The same place un-recyclable products go. Eventually, that space runs out, then what? Even if you look at it on the basis of it being the "lesser of two evils" you cannot dispute that there are some advantages to the process.

Sir, from a strictly scientific point your argument holds no water. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. The original glass bottles were made from silica here on earth and they still hold the same volume of silica. When that silica is returned to a land fill it takes up no more space than the original volume that was taken out.

Sir, from a strictly scientific point your argument holds no water. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. The original glass bottles were made from silica here on earth and they still hold the same volume of silica. When that silica is returned to a land fill it takes up no more space than the original volume that was taken out.

(My argument assumes the glass is crushed during processing.)

Yes, but then you have land filled with glass & garbage for use as...what? Do you want to live on that garbage??

"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

The arguement that we are running out of land for garbage is down right silly.There is plenty of land for land fills and we are no where near filling them up. Most people don't even know where one is located or what they look like.

The best way to 'cut back' on trash is go to the source but that won't create any jobs.
It's amazing how much trash is generated at McD's or Chick-fil-a. Thats where the effort to stop using resouces should start. We're running the race backwards starting recycling at the finish line.

Yes, but then you have land filled with glass & garbage for use as...what? Do you want to live on that garbage??

What would be bad about crushed glass as a land fill? It could fill the same roles as crushed stone or pea gravel. It's just silica so there wouldn't be any leaching of contaminates into the ground water or anything like that.